The Defeat of Russia and the Revolutionary Crisis

Written:Written in the second half of September, 1915Published:First published inPravdaNo. 260, November 7, 1928.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[197[4]],

      Moscow,Volume 21,

      pages378-382.Translated:Transcription\Markup:D. WaltersandR. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2003

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

Thedissolution of the Fourth Duma in retaliation for the formation of an
      Opposition bloc consisting of liberals, Octobrists and nationalists, is
      one of the most vivid manifestations of the revolutionary crisis in
      Russia. The defeat of the armies of the tsarist monarchy; the growth of
      the strike movement and the revolutionary movement of the proletariat; the
      discontent of the masses and the formation of the liberal-Octobrist bloc
      for the purpose of reaching an understanding with the tsar on a programme
      of reforms and mobilising industry for the victory over Germanysuch is the
      sequence and texture of events at the end of the first year of war.

Thereis obviously a revolutionary crisis in Russia, but its significance
    and the attendant tasks of the proletariat are not correctly understood by
    all.

Historyseems to be repeating itself: again there is a war, as in 1905, a
    war tsarism has dragged the country into with definite, patently
    annexationist, predatory and reactionary aims. Again there is military
    defeat, and a revolutionary crisis accelerated by it. Again the liberal
    bourgeoisie—in this case even in conjunction with large sections of
    the conservative bourgeoisie and the landowners are advocating a programme
    of reform and of an understanding with the tsar. The situation is almost
    like that in the summer of 1905, prior to the Bulygin Duma, or in the summer
    of 1900, after the dissolution of the First Duma.

Thereis, however, actually a vast difference, viz., that this war has
    involved all Europe, all the most advanced countries with mass and powerful
    socialist movements.The imperialist war haslinked upthe Russian revolutionary
      crisis, which stems from a bourgeois-democratic revolution, with the growing
      crisis of the proletarian socialist revolution in the West. This link is so
      direct that no individual solution of revolutionary [problems] is possible
      in any single country—the Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution is
      now not only a prologue to, but an indivisible and integral part of, the
      socialist revolution in the West.

In1905, it was the proletariat’s task to consummate the bourgeois
    revolution in Russia so as to kindle the proletarian revolution in the
    West. In 1915, the second part of this task has acquired an urgency that
    puts it on a level with the first part. A new political division has arisen
    in Russia on the basis of new, higher, more developed and more complex
    international relations. This new division is between the chauvinist
    revolutionaries, who desire revolution so as to defeat Germany, and the
    proletarian internationalist revolutionaries, who desire a revolution in
    Russiafor the sake ofthe proletarian revolution in the West, and
    simultaneously with that revolution. This new division is, in essence, one
    between the urban and the rural petty bourgeoisie in Russia, and the
    socialist proletariat. The new division must be clearly understood, for the
    impending revolution makes it the prime duty of a Marxist, i.e., of any
    class-conscious socialist, to realise the position of thevarious
    classes,and to interpret general differences over tactics and
    principles as differences in the positions of the various classes.

Thereis nothing more puerile, contemptible and harmful, than the idea
    current among revolutionary philistines, namely, that differences should he
    “forgotten” “in view” of the immediate common aim in
    the approaching revolution. People whom the experience of the 1905-14 decade
    has not taught the folly of this idea are hopeless from the revolutionary
    standpoint. Those who confine themselves, at this stage, to revolutionary
    exclamations, without analysing which classes haveprovedtheir
    ability to adopt, and have indeed adopted, a definite revolutionary
    programme, do not really differ from “revolutionaries” like
    Khrustalyov, Aladyin and Alexinsky.

Wehave before us the clear-cut stand of the monarchy and the
    feudal-minded landowners—“no surrender” of Russia to the liberal
    bourgeoisie; better an understanding with the German monarchy. Equally clear
    is the liberal bourgeoisie’s stand—exploit the defeat and the
    mounting revolution in order to wrest concessions from a frightened monarchy
    and compel it to share power with the bourgeoisie. Just as clear, too, is
    the stand of the revolutionary proletariat, which is striving to consummate
    the revolution by exploiting the vacillation and embarrassment of the
    government and the bourgeoisie. The petty bourgeoisie, however, i. e,, the
    vast mass of the barely, awakening population of Russia, is groping blindly
    in the wake of the bourgeoisie, a captive to nationalist prejudices, on the
    one hand, prodded into the revolution by the unparalleled horror and misery
    of war, the high cost of living, impoverishment, ruin and starvation, but on
    the other hand, glancingbackward atevery step towards the idea of
    defence of the fatherland, towards the idea of Russia’s state
    integrity, or towards the idea of small-peasant prosperity, to be achieved
    through a victory over tsarism and over Germany, but without a victory over
    capitalism.

Thisvacillation of the petty bourgeois, of the small peasant, is no
    accident, but the inevitable outcome of his economic position. It is foolish
    to shut one’s eyes to this bitter but profound truth; it must be
    understood and traced back in the existingpolitical currents and
    groupings, soas not to deceive ourselves and the people, and not to
    weaken and paralyse the revolutionary party of the Social-Democratic
    proletariat. The proletariat will debilitate itself if it permits its party
    to vacillate as the petty bourgeoisie does. The proletariat will accomplish
    its task only if it is able to march unfalteringly towards its great goal,
    pushing the petty bourgeoisie forward, letting the latter learn from its
    mistakes when it wavers to the right, and utilising all the petty
    bourgeoisie’s forces to the utmost when life compels it to move to the
    left.

TheTrudoviks, the S.R.s, and the Organising Committee’s
    liquidationist supporters—these are the politicaltrendsin
    Russia which have taken shape during the past decade, have proved their
    links with the various groups, elements andstrata in the petty bourgeoisie,
    and shown vacillation from extreme revolutionism in word, to an alliance
    with the chauvinist Popular Socialists, or withNasha Zarya, in
    deed. On September 3, 1915, for instance, the five secretaries of the
    Organising Committee abroad issued a manifesto on the tasks of the
    proletariat, which said not a word about opportunism and social-chauvinism,
    but called for a “revolt” in the rear of the German army (this
    after a whole year of struggle against the slogan of civil war!) and
    proclaimed a slogan praised so highly in 1905 by the Cadets, viz., a
    “constituent assembly for the liquidation of the war” and for
    the abolition of the autocratic
[June 3[1]] regime”! People who have
    failed to understand the need for a cleavage between the party of the
    proletariat and these petty-bourgeois trends so that the revolution may he
    successful, have assumed the name of Social-Democrats in vain.

No,in the face of the revolutionary crisis in Russia, which is being
    accelerated by defeat—and this is what the motley opponents of
    “defeatism” are afraid to admit it will be the
    proletariat’s duty to carry on the struggle against opportunism and
    chauvinism, or otherwise it will be impossible to develop the revolutionary
    consciousness of the masses, and to assist their movement by means of
    straightforward revolutionary slogans. Not a constituent assembly, but the
    overthrow of the monarchy, a republic, the confiscation of landed estates,
    and an eight-hour day will, as hitherto, he the slogans of the
    Social-Democratic proletariat, the slogans of our Party. In direct
    connection with this, and to make it possible really to single out the
    socialist tasks and contrast them with the tasks of bourgeois chauvinism
    (including the Plekhanov and the Kautsky brands) in all its propaganda and
    agitation, and in all working-class action, our Party will preserve the
    slogan of “transform the imperialist war into a civil war”,
    i.e., the slogan of the socialist revolution in the West.

Thelessons of the war are compelling even our opponents to recognise in
    practice both the stand of “defeatism” and the necessity of
    issuing—at first as a spirited phrase in a manifesto, but later more
    seriously and thoughtfully—the slogan of “a revolt in the
    rear” of the German militarists,in other words, the slogan of
    a civil war. The lessons of the war, it appears, are knocking into their
    heads that which we have been insisting on since the very outset of the
    war. The defeat of Russiahas provedthe lesser evil, for it has
    tremendously enhanced the revolutionary crisis and has aroused millions,
    tens and hundreds of millions. Moreover, in conditions of an imperialist
    war, a revolutionary crisis in Russia could not but lead people’s
    thoughts to the only salvation for the people-the idea of “a revolt in
    the rear” of the German army, i.e., the idea of a civil war in all the
    belligerent countries.

Lifeteaches. Life isadvancing,through the defeat of Russia,
    towards a revolution in Russia and, through that revolution and in
    connection with it, towards a civil war in Europe. Life has taken this
    direction. And, drawing fresh strength from these lessons of life, which
    have justified its position, the party of the revolutionary proletariat of
    Russia will, with ever greater energy, follow the path it has chosen.

[1]Thisrefers
    to the period of the Stolypin reaction ushered in by the coup
    d’état of June 3.

OnJune 3 (10), 1907, the tsar issued a manifesto
    dissolving the Second Duma and modifying the electoral law. The new law
    considerably increased the Duma representation of the landowners and of the
    trade and industrial bourgeoisie, and greatly reduced the number of
    peasants’ and workers’ representatives, which was small enough as it
    was. This was a gross violation of the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, and
    the Fundamental Law of 1908 by which no laws could be passed by the
    government without approval by the Duma. The Third Duma, which was elected
    on the basis of this law and convened on November 1 (14), 1907, was a
    Black-Hundred Octobrist Duma.